While campaigning in Pennsylvania this week, Senator Obama, on more than one occasion, said that the economy under President Clinton was one reason why the people of Pennsylvania have come under hard economic times. It is obvious Obama was trying to get to Senator Clinton through her husband, but that doesn't change that what Sen. Obama said was factually inaccurate.
The fact is that people in all walks of life and pay groups did better on President Clinton's watch and under his economic program than any other administration that Obama can even remember. The Department of Labor can attest to that. There is no other administration that can match the economic progress achieved on Clinton's watch. The people of Pennsylvania, who Obama was talking to, were certainly not better off on George W. Bush or the Reagan-Bush watch that started back 28 years ago.
In fact, the economy under President Clinton did so well for people across the pay scale, there is not another economy you can compare it to. What other administration created over 22 million jobs in 8 years; had an unemployment rate of 4.2%, the lowest in 30 years; the lowest crime rate in 30 years; balanced budgets with record surpluses while paying down over 400 billion dollars on the national debt? I challenge Obama to come up with an administration that performed better for the people.
It is one thing to be in a political campaign when some people think they can say anything that is not factual, but that is a reflection on their character and a disservice to a President who worked so hard on the economy to reverse the 12 straight years of the Reagan-Bush era, where the American people lost ground economically.
Obama may have the right to wallow in his hatred for President Clinton and his wife, but he does not have a right to knowingly misrepresent the truth and the facts.
5 comments :
Hillary Clinton Openly Admits She Lied, But Then Accuses Obama of Guilt by Association
By Mike@seekpeace.com
I’m one of those people who hates hypocrisy, especially when it's practiced by those who would govern others. The Philadelphia debate between Senators Obama and Clinton provided a textbook example of hypocrisy.
During the period when the moderators were doing their best to make sure no real issues were discussed by the candidates, moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Senator Clinton about her apparently untruthful statements about her trip to Bosnia. She responded by acknowledging that she had lied, but without saying the word, "lie."
Here are the three ways she acknowledged her lie:
"On a couple of occasions in the last weeks I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case and what I had written about in my book."
And:
"But I have talked about this and written about it. And then, unfortunately, on a few occasions I was not as accurate as I have been in the past."
And:
"And I have said that, you know, it just didn't jibe with what I had written about and knew to be the truth."
In case you¹re wondering, one of the confirmations of a lie is when you say something that you know to be false. So when she admitted saying something that, just didn’t jibe with what I knew to be the truth, she was admitting that she lied.
I was laughing pretty hard at the time and thinking that one could probably find examples of Bill Clinton using some of the very same euphemisms when confronted with evidence of his own lies.
The admission itself was significant, but the funniest part about her response was that she made the admission and then asked for a pass: "And, you know, I'm embarrassed by it. I have apologized for it. I've said it was a mistake. And it is, I hope, something that you can look over, because clearly I am proud that I went to Bosnia. It was a war zone."
She wants us to "look over" it; her lies shouldn’t be an issue.
Okay, whatever. But through out the debate, her hypocrisy came through as again and again she pressed her case that Senator Obama be held accountable for his association, not for anything he himself has done or said, but for the words and/or deeds of a couple of people he has happened to associate with over the years.
I keep seeing her as a cartoonish caricature of herself who first says, "Okay, so I lied," then points at Senator Obama and decries, "but HE knows an angry black preacher!"
Just a personal observation here!! Do you read your own blog? It's become a microcosm of the Hillary Clinton campaign itself? While you profess to want a Democratic president, you're battling as hard as Hillary to destroy the probable Democratic candidate.
On the front page (The other pages are similar but I didn't do a complete study of the entire blog), you have SEVEN (7) articles or videos attacking Senator Obama. You have ONE (1)article espousing how Democrats are better fiscally than Republicans and TWO (2) either defending or supporting Senator Clinton!!
Not a single article or video attacking Senator McCain, the Republican candidate for the White House.
Again, just an observation!!
Anonymous must view himself as a post debate commentator that has to give the people a rerun of what the candidates said during the debate. People can make up their own minds, they are capable of doing that. As for the second anonymous comment, I have read nothing that tells me the blog is trying to ruin who ever is the democratic candidate. It should also be noted that I have read several articles on this blog concerning John McCain and how he would be just another Bush and why he should not be the next President. They were dated 12/12/07,1/15/08,2/10/08 and 2/23/08.
Actually, at this point, I'd much prefer John McCain in the White House as Hillary Rodham-Clinton!!
HILLARY'S FAULTY MEMORY - I think she's forgotten who the Republicans and Democrats are. She's running as a Democrat but seems to think she's running as a Republican. Karl Rove should be proud!!
FROM CNN>
Clinton campaign gets new conservative nod
Posted: 11:30 AM ET
(CNN) – Hillary Clinton's campaign is pointing to its Pennsylvania primary endorsement Sunday morning by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - the latest in a stunning series of recent rapprochements with previous conservative media foes.
"For Pennsylvania Democrats, the smart choice Tuesday is Mrs. Clinton," writes the paper's deeply conservative editorial board in a piece e-mailed to reporters by her campaign Sunday. "She has a real voting record on key issues. Agree with her or not, you at least know where she stands instead of being forced to wonder.
"Many of her views on domestic issues are too liberal for us, but on others she seems to have moderated. ."
The board sharply criticizes both Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, writing that: "Everyone utters stupidities now and then. Yet taken together and uttered repeatedly, they sound like a pattern of thought in the Obama household. It's a pattern the nation can't afford in the White House."
The Tribune-Review is owned and published by conservative Richard Mellon Scaife — a frequent critic of the Clintons who helped fund The Arkansas Project, a series of exhaustive investigations into former President Bill Clinton.
The New York senator famously built a relationship with former critic Rupert Murdoch, whose New York Post frequently blasted both Clintons. The Australian-born media baron even hosted a fundraiser for her during her second Senate run.
But over the past few months, her presidential campaign has taken its apparent embrace of former media adversaries to a new level, sending reporters articles that praise Clinton and attack Barack Obama drawn from conservative outlets including the National Review and the American Spectator, and quotes from Republican pundits like Ed Rollins and Grover Norquist.
And former President Bill Clinton made an appearance on talker Rush Limbaugh's show the day of the Texas and Ohio primaries - contests in which the conservative radio host had urged listeners to vote for Hillary Clinton as a means of sabotaging the Democratic nominating process.
Post a Comment